In addition to the general requirements relating to matters of political or industrial controversy or current public policy, the Act requires that any news, given in whatever form, must be presented with due accuracy and impartiality.On preview cell has beaten me to it.
Reporting should be dispassionate and news judgements based on the need to give viewers an even?handed account of events. In reporting on matters of industrial or political controversy, the main differing views on the matter should be given their due weight in the period during which the controversy is active. Editorial discretion will determine whether a range of conflicting views is included within a single news item or whether it is acceptable to spread them over a series of bulletins.
Private newspapers and TV channels refuse to carry antiwar messages on their own property: CENSORSHIP! 1984! John Ashcroft!Link? If they're refusing to run stories on the antiwar movement, or antiwar oped pieces the question is matter of whether the antiwar movement is sufficiently large or vociferous enough to be newsworthy, and there's some lattitude for editorial discretion.
Government agencies use force to block a pro-war TV channel: YAY!They're not blocking anyone yet. They're investigating charges of bias. If an organization is going to label itself as a news organization, as opposed to entertainment or opinion, there is a civic responsibility to report the [strong]news[/strong], not just the events that support their point of view. Where conflicting perspectives are available, a news organization has a responsibility to report on all of them (within the bounds of reason; a few nuts in Idaho who think something is evidence of extraterrestrial control of the United States Government probably doesn't make the cut, for example).
The hypocracy of the left never ceases to amaze me.And the speed at which any debate with the right devolves into name-calling never ceases to amaze me.
It's a good thing we have government-supported bodies to tell us what 'The News" is. Makes it so much easier, and you get to stop thinking. And we all know the government never lies about its actions, of course.Wow. You know what? You're right. We should just let 'em all say whatever they want and then we'll know it's all bullshit without that annoying thinking.
Especially when the slogan of your channel is "We Report, You Decide" which in and of itself says they will be unbiased.Hmmm...perhaps Jane Akre and Steve Wilson could try for relief under truth-in-advertising regulations?
Yes, of course, not censorship but protection. I believe that is exactly the same argument Christian fundamentalists use when they want to censor nekkidness.Neither the Florida case nor the investication by the ITC investigation were about stopping someone from speaking their mind. They were both about somebody (Fox News, to be precise) refusing to present other viewpoints while pretending to be unbiased.
Only a couple of days ago, mefi user "bureaustyle" used the word censorship on Wal-Mart's decision not to sell certain magazines on its own property.Explain to me how this has any connection whatever to your post. I see nothing there at all about antiwar messages or television stations.
And, its fairly safe to assume that if the creationist vs. Darwinism issue made national news, both sides of the argument would be represented.And that's the key there: made national news. Common Law (the system used both in the United States and the United Kingdom) makes ample use of 'reasonableness' tests. While I'm not intimately familiar with the regulations and guidelines in question, my understanding is that they do in fact rely on such a test. That is, the news media don't have to track down a monarchist or maoist to comment on every single issue, but where there is significant controversy they do have both an ethical and, to at least some degree, legal responsibility to present those arguments with a significant number of adherents.
When you don't agree with the viewpoints expressed by an entity, the proper thing to do is revoke that entity's ability to communicate in toto.Jesus, what part of 'investigated for bias' don't you understand? The issue is allegations that Fox News only presented their view and then labeled it as objective news.
And here's another thing to chew on: In hindsight, most of the "pro-U.S." (and pro-Britain, I might add) reporting during the war turned out to be far more accurate (i.e., "truthful") than many other outlets, including the BBC.Don't be absurd. Who eventually won isn't determinative as to who is 'right.' Doubts that turn out to be unfounded don't invalidate a given perspective in toto.
Let's say the US government funds the MPAA and that the MPAA has the power to require complaince with its decisions.<!--beats head on desk-->
We'd all be ok with the MPAA deciding that R rated films were no longer acceptable to protect our children from images of violence and sexuality.
This wouldn't be censorship because the MPAA is an independent organization?
No. Who says there's a credible opposing view? Who says there's just one opposing view?Nobody, necessarily. If there are no opposing views, then there is no need to present them. If there is more than one opposing view, then they all should be represented.
« Older Walton Ford, 1,2,3: Nature Boy.... | De Niro non disputandis est... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Space Coyote at 12:07 AM on May 8, 2003